Welcome to the Construct 2 public preview

From the Asset Store
Simple yet very life-like rag doll made with Physics!
  • [quote:mwjclctf]It's unlikely there will be shaders in the HTML5 canvas. However, further down the road, WebGL may become part of HTML5 - it's essentially OpenGL running in a browser - and that could support shaders. However, WebGL needs to be supported by Microsoft's Internet Explorer to be a viable platform, and it's not clear Microsoft will ever support it. So while a WebGL exporter would be a really interesting project, it's not worth the risk of spending time on it until Microsoft come up with an implementation - and even if they did, it wouldn't be surprising if it was some incompatible "WebDirectX" system, which would complicate the exporter! Anyways, Canvas is the one with universal upcoming support at the moment, which is why the HTML5 exports to that.

    Ugh. UGH. I would give Microsoft the middle finger if they try any sort of crap like that, I swear. And yet, they're stupid enough to try something like that even though WebGL is already there.

    Is WebGL something that could just be implemented by a third party like Flash or Shockwave?

  • You say that as if he owned it, when actually its more the other way around.

    Construct is open source, C2 is as well, at this point anyway, and despite the free software stigma, it's not really free.

    He doesn't get it for free, as it takes his time and effort, and even though we get to use it for free, we don't get to decide what happens to it unless we contribute.

    Although buddy40's point may come into play in selling any C2 add-ons while C2 is still incomplete enough that some potential buyers may be concerned.

  • I am not disappointed about C2 in general. In fact, currently I'm more disappointed that I got an answer like "if you don't like it, don't use it. Just leave us, who love it like it is, alone". I thought we could discuss on things without such behavior.

    Ashley, thank you very much for those comprehensive explanations. It clears things up. Basically, my two main points won't exist anymore somewhere in the future. All browsers will at some time support hardware acceleration (that's very important; you can't design with hardware acceleration in mind, while a gamer might use a browser without that support), and there will be a Scirra executable exporter (be it sold or not).

    I will still help people with C1, and keep an eye on C2. As soon as exe exporting and hardware acceleration (for all possible output) is there, I will jump on the boat. Until then, I focus on other game creators and C1.

    I can't repeat it often enough: I really wish C2 being a success, and I totally understand the decisions regarding making some money. I especially find the "pay what you want" idea very attractive and more than fair.

  • Does it mean that if exe exporter will have a lower priority, it will be less functional than C1?

    Disturbing question

  • Is WebGL something that could just be implemented by a third party like Flash or Shockwave?

    There is supposedly an activex plugin which embeds Chrome. The whole thing. If Chrome begins supporting WebGL out of the box (does it yet, I'm not sure) then this could be a way of tricking IE users into being able to use WebGL.

  • Sorry but from what I've been reading about C2 annoyed me (I am not sure if I understood it right to begin with) I see it will switch to OpenGL, now I don't know what are the major differences in OpenGL and DirectX other then OGL has multi-platform support but does this mean it won't have as much power as DX games? no cool eye candy graphics, cool lighting and nextgen-esque power? sorry to ask such stupid question but I want to know the major differences between the 2 and what are they capable of (I do not pretend full 3D support to be implemented for C2 tough as it's majorly a 2D game maker program and I have nothing against that) it doesn't bother me much that Construct 2 will be OGL tough, what bothers me alot is below.

    Since it will be HTML5 does this mean export to .exe will no longer be supported and even excluded for Construct 2? I hope the export to windows .exe will be made in one point for C2, free or not but if standalone .exe's are to be completely excluded for C2 I will stick with C1 or maybe go back to Game Maker altogether if C1 will no longer be supported.

    Honestly to me the unnavaliability to export standalone .exe's is a huge letdown and here I am hoping in the future it will be available in a certain point, I understand this is a preview version and has many features missing but I do hope C2 will not have such features completely thrown in the dark til they will be forgotten.

  • If you read all of this, then you will see that that is not the case:

    C2 is still so early in development that almost all features are missing. Export to other things than HTML5 will come down the road, either developed by Scirra, or by others.

  • I thought the export things can only be implemented by the creators of Construct (Ashley) and only the plug-ins can be created by everyone, I am aware it's early in development hence I am using C1 and C2 will be superior to C1 with all those export options that will be available, so far no game creation kit other then Construct 2 that will allow you to export for Linux and Mac.

    I do have high hopes for C2 still.

  • I'm not expecting everyone to be happy, but thanks for putting forwards your views everyone.

    In short, the open letter addresses the Construct 1.0 issue. To put it very briefly, it can largely be put down to technical issues: we could release "1.0", and due to its poor architecture, it would still be unstable, so we decided the term "1.0" would be misleading. With our greater experience C2 is much better designed, so the same reason should not prevent the "1.0 of C2". And 0.x is such a mess, improving it from where it is would be more effort than starting from scratch.

    Also, the 'desktop runtime' would be OpenGL powered, and can probably hit Mac and Windows in one go if it's coded right. Anyone can make an exporter through the open exporter SDK, so there's a valid risk somebody might make a free one, but it takes a lot of in-depth knowledge of Construct and the event system algorithms to make a successful exporter. That puts the Scirra team at a big advantage over everyone else.

    OpenGL can do everything the old 0.x runtime did - shaders and all. When a desktop runtime is in the works, there's no reason to believe it'll be any less powerful than the 0.x runtime. In fact, if we're making money from it, we can spend even more time on it and make it even more powerful! That also depends on the pay-what-you-want system and other factors, though.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Glad to read that hopefully atleast the windows standalone exporter would be free but it wouldn't hurt me if it's commercial/pay-to-have exporter anyway.

  • Ashley, I don't know if you saw my post at the bottom of the page a few pages back-- what are the licensing terms on the code in the Construct 2 svn on SourceForge? (Please forgive me if this is addressed somewhere else already.)

  • I'm rather impressed with C2 so far and can see it should have massive potential when more of the old features are implemented.

    I'm just going to dive straight in with a question though - with the move away from DX, how feasible is it that someone may be able to develop and XNA exporter? Is it a complete impossibility?

  • what are the licensing terms on the code in the Construct 2 svn on SourceForge?

    The editor is GPL, and the exporters are BSD. They're different because GPL forces derivative works to also be open source, but not so with BSD, so third party developers can copy code from the HTML5 exporter for their own exporters and still sell their work.

    with the move away from DX, how feasible is it that someone may be able to develop and XNA exporter? Is it a complete impossibility?

    An XNA exporter is perfectly possible. The exporter SDK allows for any exporter to be made regardless of the technology. The editor uses OpenGL, but that is isolated from the exporters - it has no effect on writing XNA or DirectX exporters. The engine keeps them apart so you're not forced in to using anything in an exporter or designing things a particular way - you can do what you want. Hence they are "modular" (entirely separate modules).

  • Sounding better all the time. Hope you can make C2 into a fulltime job after uni. That would bring a lot of confidence to the community if you can get donations or selling exporters. Happy to pay customer here.

  • Excellent, I'm glad to see how far you're taking that modular approach.

    An XNA exporter would have massive potential to not only develop a lot of interest but hopefully give a lot more designers a chance to develop and publish via the XBLIG channel. Fingers crossed somebody gets to work on it! Although to be honest, the more export options available the better. For those of us not particularly versed in the science of programming there is still hope for effectively prototyping our ideas and now even developing those ideas into full software.

    Anyway, great work and best of luck with the continuation of the project!

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)